On 15 March 2018 at 00:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 14 March 2018 at 23:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> Here's one way to generalize this idea. We could potentially replace
>> most of the lightweight __glibcxx_assert checks with this, to get
>> zero-overhead static checking at compile-time wheneve
On 14 March 2018 at 23:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Here's one way to generalize this idea. We could potentially replace
> most of the lightweight __glibcxx_assert checks with this, to get
> zero-overhead static checking at compile-time whenever possible (even
> in constexpr functions) and have opt
On 14 March 2018 at 22:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> (Resending from a different account, sorry for the duplicate).
>
> On 14/03/18 22:12 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
>> constexpr const _CharT&
>> operator[](size_type __pos) const noexcept
>> {
>>- // TODO: Assert to restore
(Resending from a different account, sorry for the duplicate).
On 14/03/18 22:12 +0100, François Dumont wrote:
> constexpr const _CharT&
> operator[](size_type __pos) const noexcept
> {
>- // TODO: Assert to restore in a way compatible with the constexpr.
>- // __glibcx
Hi
Following PR 78420 patch I realized that we can use similar
technique to have assertions in string_view implementations.
I also rename testsuite files expected to XFAIL as they should have
a trailing '_neg'. It fixes 4 XPASS when run in debug mode
Note that I also try to use
